With enactment of the FY2009 Supplemental (H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32) on June 24, 2009, Congress has approved a total of about $944 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Congress is currently considering the FY2010 War request that was submitted to Congress along with DOD’s baseline request. The House passed its bill on July 30, 2009 (H.R. 3326) and the Senate is expected to act on its version in late September 2009. This $944 billion total covers all appropriations approved by Congress for FY2001 to meet war needs through FY2009, the current fiscal year ending September 30, 2009. Of that total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $683 billion (72%), OEF about $227 billion (24%) and enhanced base security about $29 billion (3%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate (1%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 5% for foreign aid programs and embassy operations, and less than 1% for medical care for veterans.

As of July 2009, DOD’s average monthly obligations for contracts and pay were about $10.9 billion, including $7.3 billion for Iraq, and $3.6 billion for Afghanistan. Compared to a year ago when the surge ended but troop levels remained high, average obligations have fallen by about 12%. Decreases in costs as troops are withdrawn from Iraq have been largely offset by increases in costs for additional troops for Afghanistan.

The FY2010 war request totals $139 billion including $130 billion for DOD for both wars, $6.4 billion for the State Department’s foreign and diplomatic operations, and $2.1 billion for VA medical costs for OEF and OIF veterans. Overall war funding is decreasing from the peak of $185 billion in FY2008 during the surge in Iraq to $150 billion in FY2009. This decline reflects primarily lower war-related procurement as DOD’s returned to a narrower, more traditional definition of war-related costs, rather than lower troop levels since increases for Afghanistan offset decreases for Iraq. Based on the current request, the cost of the Afghan and Iraq wars would fall by another 8% in FY2010, a decrease that is less than the currently planned 19% decrease in overall troop levels.

If the Administration’s FY2010 war request is enacted, total war-related funding would reach $1.08 trillion, including $748 billion for Iraq, $300 billion for Afghanistan, $29 billion for enhanced security, and $5 billion that cannot be allocated. Of this cumulative total, 69% would be for Iraq, 28% for Afghanistan, and 3% for enhanced security. On August 30, 2009, General Stanley McChrystal, Commander in Afghanistan, submitted a strategic assessment and a request for additional troops was reportedly given to Secretary of Defense Gates on September 26 , 2009. That request is unlikely to be vetted either within DOD and the Administration until additional ongoing White House reviews of the strategy are completed.

In a January 2009 update, the Congressional Budget Office projected that additional war costs for FY2010-FY2019 could range from $388 billion, if troop levels fell to 30,000 by 2011, to $867 billion, if troop levels fell to 75,000 by about 2013. Under these CBO projections, funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and the GWOT could total about $1.3 trillion to about $1.8 trillion for FY2001- FY2019 depending on the scenario.

You Want the Truth?

Comments

I welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. Obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules.

The following information is provided to help you understand the biases that may be inherent in this blog.My primary U.S. economic policy concern is the fiscal irresponsibility of government.The Baby Boom generation, which I am part of, has spent the past 30 years accumulating massive public debt that will be passed to our children, grandchildren, and subsequent generations.I am not opposed to the reduction or elimination of any government spending program.Yet, politicians tend to call for reduced spending in general terms and fail to publicly declare specific cuts they would make.The primary cause of the massive U.S. public debt is revenue reductions (in the form of tax cuts) without similar decreases in government spending.

I am willing to consider the expansion and addition of government programs as well.I do not mind how much or little the government provides to society as long as it is paid for.I am willing to pay higher taxes for services deemed worthy, whether they be national defense, homeland security, or income assistance to those less fortunate than I.And I am certainly willing to pay less in taxes or to deposit any government check I receive.My generation, the Baby Boomers, has been very good at cutting taxes and increasing the size of government, regardless of which political party is in power.This is a prescription for financial chaos that remains a horrible legacy for future generations.

About Me

I am a professor of economics at Jacksonville University, where I teach courses in introductory economics, comparative economic development, and globalization. I use this blog to keep in touch with my current and former students. Teachers and students at other schools, as well as others interested in economic issues, are welcome to use this resource.